- You were each asked to blog and present about a major humanitarian crisis, and as a class we learned a great deal about Yemen, Syria, and Venezuela, for example. Reflecting on what you and your classmates wrote and what we discussed in class, define and discuss the so-called Dunant versus Nightingale debate and how it applies to any of the crises we covered.
It was really hard to not get a nihilistic viewpoint on life after this class. Learning about all the atrocities going on in the world and how complicated they are made me feel utterly helpless in any of the situations and crises that we have talked about this semester. But, there are to humanitarians that help decide which side we may fall on on how to help: Nightingale and Dunant. Henry Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross, is on the side of help everyone no matter what. The core principles of the Red Cross are to remain impartial and neutral in different conflicts and to provide to anyone who may need it (Red Cross, 1979). Nightingale is more of the approach of we should use aid work for advocacy and that it is irresponsible to remain apolitical in situation that have a clear right and wrong (Selanders & Crane, 2012).
While both of these people have done incredible things for the aid sectors as well as establishing known organizations their approaches are rather different and bring up a heated debate about aid work: should it be apolitical or should we pick sides? If we were to take the Dunant approach then the answer is that we should be apolitical. Imagining a group of aid workers driving in a car come across a wounded soldier they would be obligated to help them whether they found out this soldier was actually of the side of the part oppressing the citizens or not. What this would do is make this soldier well enough to go back into battle and could therefore kill more innocent people. To the Red Cross and Dunant this is merely a side effect but should not interfere with their work. There is research on the impact of this and proof that apolitical aid work sometimes provides assistance to opposing sides of a war (Polman, 2010: 104). By remaining neutral in conflict zones is turning “the aid industry […] into a potentially lethal force the belligerents need to enlist,” (Polman, 2010: 105). This goes to show that remaining apolitical in the aid world, especially in conflict zones just makes us complicit to other humanitarian crises going on. For example, in Yemen, there are millions of displaced people and even more in need of assistance in the country due to the civil war (Global Conflict Tracker, 2019). While the situation is tense different people around the world have the tools to help end or at least calm down the conflict. With the Dunant approach, this is not our place. If this was something I was just seeing on the news then I would agree with this. But, we are already a part of conflict by going in to provide aid in the first place. By taking the Dunant approach, this just provides aid to all and prolong the conflict in the end therefore ,inadvertently, causing more deaths.
On the other end is the Nightingale approach which is based in advocacy and activism. Nightingale was someone who was all about action and not just words; she never explicitly said that she was in the nursing field to increase advocacy for patients and nurses alike but she showed it through her actions (Selanders & Crane, 2012). In this regard, when looking at the aid sector it means we need to be advocates for patients around the world. If aid workers were to see a sudden influx of children with wounds from bombs then instead of just treating their wounds and continuing on they may fight for the war to end that is causing these children to become victims. If the tools, resources, and knowledge are there then why not do something with it? The thing about advocacy is that it requires a level of understanding about various systems. We cannot aim to change a system that we don’t know the first thing about. So, to have an aid organization that is aimed at advocacy means that that organization is taking the time to understand the dynamics of a situation and is thinking creatively about to help. It also means that they understand that change, at the end of the day, has to come from within and that it is not up to them to stage a coup to fix things. In the case of Somalia, the US had had such a presence that they understood the working of the country, and their role in it, that when it was time to help rebuild a stable country they had the knowledge and passion to make it work (Cain, Postlewait, & Thomson, 1991: p 96). With the Nightingale approach this was the appropriate next step: advocacy for those still living in bad conditions from the aftermath of the conflict in the area. Providing food and water and the occasionally medical care for them was not enough. The aid workers in the area knew that the people needed the governmental aid and the infrastructure to make sure once the aid workers left that the work would continue. Aid work goes beyond just that of delivering resources; if someone is going to provide aid they need to see the job till it is complete and not leave when things get hard.
Looking athe Dunant v Nightingale sheds a lot of light on how different NGOs, INGOs, MONGOs etc operate. I personally think the Nightingale approach is the one that everyone should follow. When looking at places that America provides aid then, like stated above, it does more harm than good to be apolitical. We can’t go into places like Syria and the DRC and only provide medical aid when there is something far deeper going on. When it comes to things like aid relief for natural disasters then the Dunant approach is absolutely the model we should follow; there is not political force or person oppressing people when it comes to nature. Going into a natural disaster site with an advocacy mindset does not make sense. But, in conflict zones then it absolutely does. There is a fine line to walk that we are not pushing out political and cultural beliefs on them. When we go into these places we need to be thinking about humanitarian rights and how to let these people live the best lives they can. What we can’t do is go in with the guise of advocacy but are really looking for a way to shift the political scales of that country in favor of the United States. Understanding these two viewpoint is imperative to understanding aid work. We have to see that there are different approaches to aid work and that not everyone will follow one or the other. If there was a reform to the aid sector I would imagine it looking like natural disaster relief organizations follow the Dunant approach while those that go into conflict zones follow the Nightingale approach. It is not easy to pick a side with these two because it typically aligns with someone’s religion, moral, and/or ethical beliefs and that is not something people like to be debated on. But, for true positive change to come to this world then maybe it is time to start hurting some people’s feeling.
- Now that we are at the end of the semester, summarize the differences between how the late January ‘you’ and the end-or-semester ‘you’ would define the ‘humanitarian imperative.’ The title of this course is ‘Being and Becoming a Global Citizen’. Summarize the differences between how the late January ‘you’ and the end-or-semester ‘you’ would define ‘global citizen.’
I am, as a person, rather cynical and my opinions on the humanitarian system match that. Back during my first year on campus I was convinced that I was going to go into the PeaceCorps after graduation. It sounded so appealing; two years abroad helping people and federal loan forgiveness. Life couldn’t get much better than that. Then, I started doing more research about the organization and aid work in general and suddenly I became so jaded about the field. All the picture I saw were just white people helping brown people and I couldn’t help but think my experience would be horrendous. After going abroad and volunteering while I was there changed things a little. It was a different perspective; being black (colored to South Africans) helping other black and colored people. I was received far better than white Americans that were also volunteering; it was like the kids wanted to help me remember a heritage I had no connection to other than my skin color. In the end, I learned so much more from those kids then what my ‘job’ was to go in and teach them. This was the mindset I had coming into this class; good can be done but we have to be open to learning and let it be a reciprocal relationship, not one that is based on ‘I have the resources that you lack so I’m gonna make you do what I want.” I came into the class with a vague idea of what a global citizen was and a hazy idea of what aid workers really do. Now, I have a clearly vision. Some of that cynicism has come back especially after learning varying statistics of the aid world and learning about things like force multipliers. I think I have a more realistic idea of the sector and I can say that I would like to go into aid work at some point in my life. There is so much aid that a lot of the world needs but having the knowledge from this class I feel I could tackle some of these problems in a less ethnocentric viewpoint than what some organizations promote. It is much like what Kenzie is planning on doing: volunteering with a problematic organization to be that rebel within. Another thing about my mindset that is different from my January self is that now I understand how much of a system aid work is exactly. But, when we think too much about systems we forget that individuals make up that system. It is a lot easier to try to change a person here and there but it sounds impossible to tackle an entire system. While it still seems like quite a daunting task I feel more confident, knowing that progress can be made no matter how small. Further, I did not realize the impact that going into aid work can have no matter who you are. Genevieve talking to us rather candidly about that provided more insight than I could have ever hoped for. In January I imagine aid workers as either these super human beings that could do anything or these stereotypical white people going into the field just for the pictures with the little black and brown people. But, talking to all these different aid workers (J, Tawhid, Genevieve) really put a little perspective on the field. For one, not everything is hands on work like in the case of Tawhid. People have to crunch numbers, order supplies, and be the driving forces from behind the scenes. And there are some people that have to see the atrocities that happen on the field like the three narrators of Emergency Sex. People like Genevieve and Heidi are still dealing with the impact of their aid work in the forms of depression or PTSD. Aid work is not pretty. In all, the biggest change has been learning that humanitarian aid is not as cut and dry as I previously thought.
I say all this to give to perspective as to how my definition of the humanitarian imperative and global citizen have changed. Before, I would say that a global citizen is someone who has travelled all over the world and just has a ‘worldy’ energy about them. Some people will go to Thailand to see the monks and come back a Buddhist. I thought that that was what someone is supposed to do to be considered a global citizen. But, now I understand it as someone who is able to view the world and appreciate the beauty in our differences and find the grace in our similarities. It can be someone who has travelled or not but it feels more like an aura than an accomplishment. If someone who has travelled is it be considered a global citizen then I think that means that they are able to fully immerse into a culture and to drop as many of their own biases as possible. It means that when they come back to their home country they are able to apply the principles they learned abroad and are able to see the things people may have had to say about the home country that before the person didn’t really understand. Being a global citizen, that I didn’t understand in January, is about being open to learning about other cultures and not just forgetting all of that once you leave the country you were visiting.
As for the humanitarian imperative this has been a complete shift. If you asked me what the humanitarian imperative was in January I probably could not give you a coherent sentence to try to define it. But, now I view it, much as other classmates have said during class times, as a Western idea. I think all humans have an intrinsic need to help other but with the Western world we always want to send that need to help overseas rather than helping the people in our own backyard. Look at the world imperative itself means something is absolutely necessary, critical even. I think only Westerners view the world as a place to show off about how kind and generous we are. It is like ‘here we are, we have money, let us help you, and if you aren’t grateful then that’s on you nto us.’ That is kind of how I view the humanitarian imperative now. By calling it an imperative with the word humanitarian, which I’ve really only seen in Western literature, makes it sound like we have to help. And that is not to say that we shouldn’t if we have the resources. But, what makes it problematic in my eyes is that we will go overseas to build orphanages in conflict zones that inhabitable for children but don’t see anything wrong with the foster care system in America. Hearing the words humanitarian imperative makes me think that Americans, and the Western world, don’t think anything is wrong with us and that we are the best therefore we have to go into other countries to make them better and more like America. It is the principle that the Western world was founded on, taming the ‘savage’ Native Americans, breeding the aboriginal blood out of Native Australians etc. We have never been good at looking inwards and this course solidified that idea for me.
Citations
Cain, Kenneth, et al. Emergency Sex: (and Other Desperate Measures): True Stories from a War Zone.
Ebury, 2006.
Pictet, Jean. “The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross : Commentary.” ICRC, 1 Jan. 1979,
www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/fundamental-principles-commentary-010179.htm.
Selanders, Louise & Crane, Patrick. The Voice of Florence Nightingale on Advocacy,
ojin.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/ANAMarketplace/ANAPeriodicals/OJIN/TableofCo
ntents/Vol-17-2012/No1-Jan-2012/Florence-Nightingale-on-Advocacy.html.
Polman, Linda, et al. The Crisis Caravan: Whats Wrong with Humanitarian Aid? Picador, 2011.
Arcaro , Tom. “Being and Becoming a Global Citizen.” Class discussions. SOC371, 2019, Elon, NC.
This citation encompasses all of the knowledge pulled from a variety of different classes including Skype guest speakers, presentations, and student led discussions